At the September Board Discussion Session, Jason Temple, Chief Operating Officer, (COO) discussed two issues. The first issue was selling/buying water outside the Village and secondly, the dredging of Lake Granada went over anticipated cost by $46,000. Additionally, at the end of the meeting, Director Avila asked for help with broadband issues.
Selling and buying water outside the Village
Temple: “We have a wholesale water remit with North Garland County Regional Water District. We finally got their proposed agreement to the Village. This water from North Garland County is proposed to an interconnection that we would build at Highway 5 and Balboa Gate. You may have heard me say that before. We proposed to do a large diameter waterline interconnection there at that point. Now we have the agreement that would operate that interconnection between the two water utilities.”
Temple: “Now North Garland County Regional Water District is the water district that provides water all along Highway 5 and Highway 7 and they get their water from Lake Ouachita.”
Temple: “You remember years ago, we participated with the City of Hot Springs, North Garland County Regional Water District and Hot Springs Village, all participated in the acquisitioning of water allocation from Lake Ouachita. We have up to two million gallons per day of water allocation from that lake if we can get it. Well, we can get it through the North Garland County Regional Water District.”
Temple: “This is just a first step of building bridges and new neighbors. That water supply right now is, we ought to be able to provide about half a million gallons per day of water as an emergency backup.”
Temple: “It’s good to have (and not have) and it’s very easy to get to. Over time we would propose working with that water district to increase it to up to two million gallons per day.”
Temple: “So that is just in the memo to you for your review. It can be addressed tomorrow or it can be addressed next month. That is just a heads up.”
Omohundro: “Is this water we are going to be receiving?”
Temple: “Right. This would be water that we could get from North Garland County Regional Water District from Lake Ouachita, if we needed it.”
Temple: Right now, we only have one water supply and that is the water that we get from the Northfork Creek and we have one Lake Lago Reservoir. We have one water treatment plant.”
Temple: “Catastrophic weather could take out any one of those parts and we could be hindered for water in catastrophic conditions. So this is an emergency backup that takes advantage of a water source that we already have acquisitioned – we already own.”
Omohundro: “It in no way violates us that we would be giving water to outside of the community?”
Temple: “No, no this is proposed…I mean, we do give, we do sell water to Paron-Owensville Water District at the East Gate. And that’s due to right of way and that’s not a violation of any buffer crossage or anything like that. That is through our right of way. It would be the same thing. The right of way ties into Highway 5. This is the route that that waterline would come through.”
Sherman: “But it’s an incoming water..”
Temple: “It’s only an incoming water. They actually are at a higher elevation or a higher hydraulic grade line where their water would push into us. We can’t push water into them.”
Sherman: “Okay, so what is it you’re going to be proposing?”
Temple: “Just the wholesale water agreement that the Board would have to approve and execute. And it goes back to that water… It’s just the agreement that we would have between the two utility water districts if we wanted to receive water from them.”
Sherman: “And when will we receive that for review?”
Temple: “I’ve sent that to Ella [Scotty] and she can send it to you for your review this evening or we can work on it over the month. You know, look at it next month. I just wanted to give you a heads up. Leave that in the queue.”
Sherman: “Thank you.”
Omohundro: “Clarify something else for me then, since you brought it up. We sell water to Paron?”
Temple: “We do. For years.”
Temple: “Brings in about $35,000 a year of (indecipherable) revenue.”
Omohundro: “I thought we did and I just thought it said we couldn’t do that.”
Sherman: “Well, the Declaratoins say you can’t do that.”
Temple: “Actually you can. You can. You can do it.”
Sherman: “Well the Declarations say you can’t.”
Temple: “It says if you are in a position to provide water to..”
Omohundro: “Provide, provide, not sell. Provide.”
Temple: “Well provide or sell. It has to be done in accordance with Arkansas state law, which we did.”
Omohundro: “But we can give it away. We just can’t sell that. It says in the Declarations.”
Temple: “No, you can sell it. So long as it’s in accordance with Arkansas state law.”
Omohundro: “The Declarations are not the (indecipherable). The Declarations is the rules for the Village.”
Temple: “That’s exactly, we did that exactly in accordance with Arkansas [indecipherable] in accordance with the Declarations.”
Temple: “We did that. And you’re $35,000 in the plus for it.”
Omohundro: “Unless we need more water that we’re fixing to tap on and get more water from somebody else because we are selling some water.”
Temple: “Well, we have a surplus. We have plenty of surplus in that area.”
Omohundro: “Why are we tapping on to more water?”
Sherman: “At any rate, get that to us so we can review it.”
Avila: “It’s only for emergencies.”
* * *
HSV Covenants and Restrictions Declaration last amended 8-1-2013
* * *
Dredging of Lake Granada exceeds anticipated cost by $46,000
Temple: “The dredging on the lakes is nearing completion. They did some extra work on Lake Granada and so there is a change order for $46,000 coming your way. That’s also a part of the packet. I wanted to bring it to your attention and we can approve that next month, if that’s possible.”
Avila on Broadband
Director Avila said, “Broadband is a major issue in this Village. We lost out initially on the rural broadband grant that came around. We have another opportunity to be a part of that grant. We need one piece. One. And that is GIS mapping of the survey that we did. So I need help. Charles, I am putting you on the spot.”
Charles asked if Pam received his email.
Pam stated she probably didn’t if he sent it when she was driving to the meeting.
Charles said they could do that.
Sherman said an email from Greg Jones indicated they have the data and the Computer Club simply hasn’t done anything with it.
King asks people to slow down and understand the facts
King said, “And that is my point and when you read the email, you will get it. I think there is a lot of jumping in and not understanding the facts, which causes mass confusion. That was my point. We need to slow down. Let’s understand the facts because I don’t know what you guys are talking about. Honestly, I just came into this. So I got with Stephanie and some other people. Stephanie wasn’t involved in this. She’s involved in it now. She’s already reached out to Greg and this ball is rolling. That’s my point. We’re pointing to everybody else. Come to me and we’ll get things done. And we’ll get the facts and understand what’s going on.”
By Cheryl Dowden, September 11, 2020
* * *
Thank you for reading. Be sure to bookmark this website. Click here to visit the Hot Springs Village People Facebook Group.
09/11/2020 — 8:15 pm
Thank you, Cheryl for posting this info. I appreciate the work that this HSV BOD does on our behalf.
09/11/2020 — 10:03 pm
Owensville & Paron have agreements with Central Ar water out of LR to supply & support water for them. Why are we selling water to them? Declarations say we can provide if needed, not sell! Thanks to Tucker & Lloyd for catching this and asking Temple questions on this issue. This situation needs to be totally investigated. Provide does not mean sell. Minn Daly
09/12/2020 — 5:11 pm
The Peron Emergency Water Agreement was approved by the BOD at the March 16, 2016 Board meeting. It was a unanimous vote of the five members present (Harv Shelton, Chair, Mike Medica Vice Chair, Marcy Mermel, George Parker and John Weidert. Mary Neilson had previously resigned and Jeff Adkins had left the meeting before the vote took place) . During the Board discussion on this matter at the February 2016 meeting it was pointed out that this would only be needed by Peron in an emergency and the cost was to be $4.09 per 1,000 gallons and it was stated that the State’s regulations were being followed with regard to this agreement. Peron would incur all costs to establish a point of connection just outside the village near the East Gate. I do not know whether this agreement might have been renewed, updated, or amended since that time but I expect it can be viewed at the POA office by submitting a Document Review Request. Nor do I know if Peron has ever, in fact, needed to invoke the right to access any POA water.
09/12/2020 — 5:33 pm
Thank you, Melinda, for this information. – Cheryl
09/12/2020 — 7:14 pm
What I’d like to know is why (assuming this contract is legal and/or may be used) are we charging them $4.09 per thousand gallons but we have to pay $6.46 per thousand gallons ($32.30 billing for up to 5,000 gallons, whether we use that much or not)? Plus I understand there is an additional charge if we use over 5,000 gallons during the billing period.
Am I missing something or misunderstanding?
09/14/2020 — 11:06 am
Vicki, what you are missing is that the $32.30 that you reference is for TWO months of service so I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples. I’m sort of sorry I published the information I had about the Peron water agreement because without actually seeing whatever is currently in place, I may have opened up a pandora’s box that I didn’t intend. I would expect that the agreement had excalators in it to increase the cost by some annual percentage or COL but again, I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE.
11/12/2021 — 12:04 am
You are correct, you do pay for water up to 5000 in two months or 2500 a month whether you use it or not. It is a terrible rip off and gives no incentive to conserve water by those gluts that use closer to that 5000 gallon billing cycle.
09/14/2020 — 4:03 am
Regarding the word “PROVIDE”. In no context that I can come up with, does the word imply “FREE”. For example, Suddenlink is a “provider” of both cable TV and internet service, but they are hardly doing it for free. National Park Hospital is a healthcare “provider” but both I and my insurance company have paid them many thousands of dollars. There are companies who provide insurance for home and car, companies who provide propane, lawn care, trash pick up, etc. ect. ect. but NONE of them do it for “free”. Don’t know why someone would argue as a point of law, that “Provide” exclusively constitutes a charitable act, devoid of any financial compensation. Not so.
09/14/2020 — 11:07 am
John, excellent addition to the conversation. I would agree.
09/14/2020 — 10:33 am
Mr. John Shropshire, Thank you for the word lesson on PROVIDE! HSV Declarations state Provide if needed. Who makes this decision? Lloyd & Tucker was totally correct in looking into this issue. We need to stay out of law suits! There are legal issues involved with easements & supplier of water that do not belong to HSV. If water is needed cost should be the same rate as to what members pay for water service. I do not believe arguing the word PROVIDE is a concern for you, the word FREE was at issue. Agreeing that our BOD needs to investigate, make it certain this is legal & it does not deplete HSV water supply, then if needed PROVIDE sale of water at member rates. Minn Daly
09/14/2020 — 1:32 pm
Minn Daily and others, thank you for your well reasoned response. I will only add one additional thought to this conversation. Yes, we as “retail customers” pay for water at a retail rate of a bit under six and one-half dollars per thousand gallons, piped to our home in quantities of (usually) around two to three thousand gallons per month. In contrast, Owensville and Paron are clearly “wholesale” buyers of water from HSV in quantities that (most probably) entail, or would entail, the purchase of several hundred thousands of gallons of water per month. By the time their water districts add their mark-up for the costs of acquisition, purification and distribution, their residential or business retail customers are likely paying the same (or more) than we are here in the village. I, for one, am delighted that HSV is in a position to generate additional cash flow into the perpetually near-empty coffers that sustain day to day life here in the village, without having to increase my property dues and fees.
09/14/2020 — 2:46 pm
Retail or wholesale it matters not. The fact is our facilities were intended to support the Village and the Village only, not to be sold outside. The merits of an “emergency” agreement can be debated but it is unlikely we would get supplies from Owensville / Paron if we were the ones with the problem. It is not clear just how the newly revealed Temple plan would work.
As to using our facilities to supplement our financial problems, that is a seriously flawed idea. Water and sewer plants have finite limits and require permits for capacity. None of those permits are easy to come by, particularly in the new age of environmentalism which now exists. Everyone should also recall that we spend millions and floated bonds to finance the water plant expansion expenditure just 8 or 9 years ago – to provide adequate capacity for our own needs – NOT to be in the water (or sewer) selling business.
The reason our coffers are perpetually empty is due to piss poor management and asinine board decisions over decades. Let’s hope our current leaders have enough sense NOT to go down such roads again.
09/14/2020 — 4:47 pm
Tom congratulations! Your response is so correct, analysis as well. So grateful that Tucker & Lloyd saw this as a liability. Minn Daly